By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy, during a recent Warsaw visit, asserted that a swift end to the Russo-Ukrainian war hinges on a significantly more assertive European stance against Russia, including tripled pragmatism and increased arms production. He highlighted Europe’s vulnerability without Ukraine’s defense, emphasizing Russia’s superior military capabilities and brutality. Zelenskyy believes that a united Europe, coupled with US and Chinese pressure, is necessary to deter further Russian aggression. He reiterated previous statements about a potential 2025 resolution, contingent upon robust security guarantees for Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s assertion that Europe has no chance against Russia without the Ukrainian military is a provocative statement, demanding careful consideration. His point hinges on the idea that a successful Ukrainian defense acts as a crucial deterrent to further Russian aggression in Europe. Without Ukraine absorbing the brunt of the initial Russian onslaught, other European nations might become vulnerable targets.
The argument suggests that Russia’s tactics extend beyond conventional warfare. Putin’s success relies partly on exploiting internal divisions within European societies through disinformation campaigns and hybrid warfare tactics. A weakened or conquered Ukraine would remove a vital bulwark against this strategy, leaving European democracies more susceptible to internal erosion.
A key element in Zelenskyy’s perspective is the unique combat experience of the Ukrainian military. Years of fighting have honed their skills and forged a national identity deeply rooted in defense against Russia. This hard-won experience is an invaluable asset, unmatched by many European nations that lack recent large-scale combat experience. This disparity in experience significantly impacts their capacity to effectively respond to Russian aggression.
Further bolstering this argument, the current Ukrainian military’s absorption by Russia presents a nightmarish scenario for Europe. A Russian-aligned, battle-hardened Ukrainian army would be a formidable force deployed against European interests and would substantially increase their military capability. This is an existential threat to the stability of Europe. Therefore, supporting Ukraine is not only a matter of aiding a fellow nation but of preventing a far more dangerous situation down the line.
The financial and material support for Ukraine, although significant, is perceived by Zelenskyy as insufficient. He implies that Europe could, and perhaps should, be doing far more to equip and financially support Ukraine. The fear of a future where US support might diminish, possibly under different political leadership, emphasizes the need for a stronger, more independent European commitment to the defense of Ukraine. This makes the issue of the underinvestment by Europe more concerning.
The counterargument that Europe, with its advanced weaponry and larger combined military might, could easily defeat Russia is dismissed by Zelenskyy’s reasoning. He highlights the vast size of the Russian military, their greater numbers of personnel and equipment, and their ruthless tactics. The concern is not solely about raw military strength but about the logistical challenges and the potential for significant losses in a large-scale conflict which, unlike the current situation, would be fought on European soil.
Zelenskyy’s stance acknowledges the technological superiority of some European militaries but stresses the significance of Ukrainian ground forces’ experience in a protracted war against Russia. The constant barrage of missiles and drones, especially as deployed by the Russians against Ukraine, highlights the intensity and sophistication of modern warfare, an intensity that many European nations are currently unprepared for. The comparison to other European states suggests they lack the battle-hardened, highly experienced military that the Ukrainian forces have.
The implications of Zelenskyy’s words extend beyond mere military capabilities. The suggestion that Putin’s strategy relies on psychological warfare and exploiting political divisions within Europe underscores the critical nature of the situation. Investing in Ukraine’s defense is seen not only as military support but also as a critical investment in Europe’s own security. This highlights a key element of his argument, the importance of understanding Russia’s overall strategy, beyond just military tactics.
Ultimately, Zelenskyy’s argument rests on a stark assessment of risk. The cost of allowing Ukraine to fall is far greater than the cost of providing substantial support now. While the financial and material costs of aiding Ukraine are significant, the potential cost of a Russian victory in Ukraine, and the subsequent destabilization of Europe, is immeasurable. His core message is clear: supporting Ukraine’s defense is not just about Ukraine’s survival, it’s about Europe’s future.